Posted
by
Zonk
on Friday July 08, 2005 @09:32PM
from the sequels-are-great dept.

Comatose51 writes "China is planning its own Deep Impact mission. The goal of the mission, unlike the exploratory NASA project, is to push potential life-ending comets or asteroids away from a collision course with the earth." From the article: " The third nation to launch a man into space has lofty space ambitions that include putting two astronauts into orbit this September and eventually sending up a space station and even a manned mission to the moon."

Well they are certainly talking ambitiously. But I'll believe it when I see it... From the article:

"Actually, our country has its own Deep Impact plans, it's just we've never revealed them to the public before," the Beijing News quoted Chinese astronomer Zhao Haibin as saying.

In other words, oh yes, we were planning to do that the whole time...but of course -

China still had to overcome technical obstacles before it could send a comet collider into space, Xinhua news agency quoted Huang Chunping, the lead engineer behind sending China's first man into space in '03, as saying

This is the Xinhua News Agency [wikipedia.org] which according to wikipedia "reports directly to the Communist Party's Propoganda Department".

People are always asking themselves "what if." The US military has plans for full scale thermo-nuclear war with canada. I have plans to teleport into strange women's bedrooms. Scientists especially tend to plan things out, even if they aren't likely.

Actually, the sneaky thing would be to aim a tiny comet or fragment thereof in such a way as to take out "accidently" an appropriate city of their political enemy. It would work as part of their secret warfare strategy.

As a contractor who works at JSC, I can assure you that NASA is in charge; neither we nor our companies have any say accept for: "Yes sir". If the contractors are in charge then why did Lockheed, which had been at JSC for more than 40 years, lose the ESCG contract to Jacobs Engineering? Contractors exist because the space agency can get rid of both the companies and the individuals easily; firing a government employee is very difficult.

Contractors in charge is a ridiculous thing to say. From the inside NASA's biggest problem is that during the space race technical people who knew how to accomplish technical tasks were picked to lead and manage the agency at all levels; now most NASA divisions have "professional managers" who couldn't personally build and fly a model rocket - let alone make critical decisions about the real thing. It is these non technical "professional managers" who are the "NASA cultural problem" you have heard so much about. Such people have been directly responsible for most of NASA's technical disasters.

"NASA had visual, but I am hoping China can one-up NASA and put a microphone onboard so we can hear the exciting sounds of a space collision. Did George Lucas do this?"

Erm. Nearly every single movie or tv show that had a sequence in space has sound. Why's Lucas the scapegoat? I realize the prequels sucked, but geez. The worst part is, it's a really stupid thing to nitpick. Those sequences don't say there's sound in space any more than they say an orchestra follows the characters around and plays appr

There is much less likelihood of that happening since it's unlikely that your but (and the rest of your GI tract) is capable of holding even one monkey. Not to mention, monkeys cannot fly. So you would also have yo have monkeys that are bizarrely small and equipped with flying apparatus of some kind thereby doubling the space (flying equipment = 1 monkey in size) required to house monkeys.

Whereas, it has been scientifically proven that *something* is out there neare Uranus and Neptune causing a gravitati

What claim to the moon? We were under an international agreement explicitly forbidding any such claims, hence the engraving on Eagle's base: "We came in peace for all mankind." The US flag was symbolism (and something to rub the Soviets' noses in), not a territorial claim.

That the comets that might _potentially_ hit the earth are the most stunning to view from earth. Diverting them away from earth takes away some awesome home astronomical viewing. If they are going to do this, they should only divert ones that they can certainly establish would pass too close for comfort (which might happen once or twice in a hundred years).

An estimate of the orbital delta-v for Tempel/Deep Impact [universetoday.com] suggests a velocity change of only 1 cm/hour (I can't vouch for the math). Assuming we would need to nudge a threatening body by 1/2 the diameter of the Earth (from direct hit to grazing pass-by), we would need to know to hit a Tempel 1-sized body in advance by over 73,000 years. This type of mission would work 10 years in advance for much smaller bodies (say less than 350 m in diameter). Even these estimates assume a perfect strike by the deflecting deep impactor -- a margin of error or the need to push the object several Earth-diameters further reduces the potential for this method.

Kinetic energy is not the way to go. Deep Impact delivered only about 4.5 kt of TNT. In contrast, a good sized thermonuclear weapon could deliver thousands of times that energy (even taking into account the relatively poor conversion of 100 megatons yield into delta-V).

Energy isn't exactly relevent since what we need to do is transfer momentum. I don't think a nuclear weapon is the best way to do that. If you're going to send a fission device out there, I say use an engine. This probably requires a delicate rendevous with the comet, rather than a simple ballistic interception, though.

Here's neat link mentioning megatons of yield needed to deflect 1km asteroid by cm/s. here [spaceref.com] Repeated applications of the more usual 1-5 MT warheads seems more reasonable than the need to invent a 100MT monster. But if the dimensions of the asteroid are of the order of dozens of cubic km then we're probably screwed! 8D

Just to wax philosophical for a moment, I hear people talk about founding space stations so we "don't have all our eggs in one basket", but if the entire earth gets wiped out does it really matter if we have a couple dozen people in a space station or moon base? nah, who gives a crap at that point, certainly you or I won't....

If I remember correctly we've already dumped more radiation into the atmosphere than such a deflection would. There were all those nukes (tests mostly), a few space probes (which for some time vented their radiactive fuel in case of problems), and coal power plants (which I belive put out some radiactive material since its in the coal they burn, small for each plant but we burn a shitload of coal). In the end, the Earth is a big place and it probably doesn't really matter.

From the blurb: From the article: "The third nation to launch a man into space has lofty space ambitions that include putting two astronauts into orbit this September and eventually sending up a space station and even a manned mission to the moon."

According to this [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia article:Taikonaut is sometimes used in English for astronauts from China by Western news media. The term was coined in May 1998 by Chiew Lee Yih from Malaysia, who used it first in newsgroups. Almost simultaneously, Chen Lan coined it for use in the Western media based on the term tàikng (), Chinese for space. In Chinese itself, however, a single term yháng yuán (, "universe navigator") has long been used for astronauts and cosmonauts. The closest term using taiko

Or will they take the US route (which we'll call "Fred") where we talk grand plans and visions...then we cut funding for other projects that are already successfully producing major scientific discovery, and finally we then cut funding even more and adapt 40 year old technology that never lived up to its original expectations in the first place. And then when it fails we propose gigantic new visions we don't intend to follow through on, so that everyone forgets about the failure of the earlier project.

It comes from back in the day when the space station was originally proposed. It was a much larger and more useful design, and it was going to be named "Freedom". But as usual, our government was more interested in weapons and such than science, so the design was scaled back *massively* after funding cut after funding cut. This started a popular joke going around that because of the reduction in size of the proposed station, there was no longer room to paint the word "Freedom", so they had to also cut th

I don't know about everyone else, but when someone else says they plan to "move comets" while at the same time saying they are going to militarize their space program (see first top rated comment in this thread), well that stops and makes me think a little about what the two mean together.

Especially when the title is "Deep Impact" yet they don't plan to crash INTO the comet but to move it INTO... some other target? Perhaps a military target?:-)

The kinds of things people are now capable of, technologically, economically and ethically, represent terminal threats to the possibility of peace, and even our species existence. In a vacuum of responses to these threats, we are doomed. Which is why the current vogue in the US of subverting even the minimal mitigations, like the US, other international law, and human rights treaty regimes, is lethally irresponsible.

I specifically said "treaty" and "regime". You really don't know how international law works, do you? We don't wave fingers. We have international inspectors and spies who monitor compliance and take action, usually under the treaty's terms, to stop violations. Not every military enforcement of UN rulings is a lie about WMD to justify invading Iraq, but that's how they work.

"With 2B people to feed, China has much more pressing issues that saving the Earth from comets."

That's the problem, iddn't it? They can't afford to be hit by a comet, either. Well roundedness/diversity can be a good thing. Consider the USA's space program. Suppose it never happened, would the USA be the same for it? Maybe they want to cover their butts and spark a little technological innovation to boot.

"This project is a cover for military operations in space. Maybe they're researching how to divert a planetoid into the Earth, potentially more powerful than any nuclear weapon."

Err maybe. The way I see it, though, this sort of weapon has the same drawbacks as a nuclear weapon. It's not like they're going to use it against their enemies without it being traced back to them. If they managed to drop a comet on somebody, from a consequences point of view they'd be in just as much shit as they would be if they had fired a nuclear weapon. Worse, it'd take a hell of a lot longer to get the ball rolling, not to mention the dangerous consequences of a small mistake. What would stop the USA or any other government from responding with nuclear weapons if China pulled a stunt like that? Truth be told, I have trouble imagining that the impact of a comet wouldn't rock their boat, anyway. If it hit the water, for example, well just think about that. If a big enough comet hit to kick a lot of dust into the air, well they wouldn't be fond of that, either. Maybe I'm just incredibly naieve about how useful of weapon a comet diversion would be, but IMHO this theory just seems too far-fetched.

An alternative explanation is that China's vasteness makes the concept of a comet or asteroidal impact a bit scary. (At least on a statistical level.) Perhaps they're worried about their own territory. They might even be trying to improve their global image. "We're trying to save the planet here!"

Anyway, I can speculate all day about it. I'm not trying to say you're wrong. I'm just not sure I suspect you're right.

It decreases time of flight to target. It makes it harder for a ballistic missile defense system like SDI/Star Wars to successfully intercept because you won't have huge friggin ground launch signatures to warn you and give you accurate trajectory estimates, you'll just have much smaller de-orbit burns that make detection and prediction much harder, with a smaller event window in which to do it. It's an inevitable result of the return of the US missile defense project.

"It decreases time of flight to target. It makes it harder for a ballistic missile defense system like SDI/Star Wars to successfully intercept because you won't have huge friggin ground launch signatures to warn you and give you accurate trajectory estimates, you'll just have much smaller de-orbit burns that make detection and prediction much harder, with a smaller event window in which to do it. It's an inevitable result of the return of the US missile defense project."

As long as the US is afraid it might get nuked it will stay away from nations that have that capacity and stick to attacking defenseless countries like iraq and afghanistan.

You are discounting the very real danger of accidental release of nuclear weapons. Both USA and USSR have on several occasions mistaken various events for missile launches. Fortunately there was enough time to figure out that the launches were imaginary or peaceful. Once both SDI and nuclear weapons in space are in place, the likelyho

If the US felt that there was a real danger of being accidentally nuked they would aggressively pursue disarmament. Again that's a good thing. Ideally the Chinese would set up space based nukes sitting on top of the US where the missiles could hit withing 10 to 20 seconds and cause instant annhilation of the country.

If that happened the US would do everything in it's power to get rid of all th enukes in the world. Until then the US feels like it has the capacity to destroy other countries while minimizing

You're not wrong about China having an ulterior military motive for their space work. A nation (even an Axis of Evil Rogue Nation) has a right to defend its interests against a perceived threat. Of course China has military uses planned for their extraterrestrial technology.

But you're completely wrong in thinking that we could say or do anything to stop China from doing anything they really want to do. Had we shown "leadership" and pushed for a ban on military uses of space, they wouldn't have listened anyway.

We will have weapons in space because we have weapons wherever we go. We are a violent, overconsumptive, power-hungry race.

The entire stated purpose of the US opening global markets with the WTO to China was to create their dependency on other nations, for negotiations like mutual security. Of course I know the politicians and their corporate bribers^Wcontributors were lying about that, to enrich themselves at our expense. But I won't be "getting past it". I will oppose it. Your complacency might help you sleep better, but I don't sleep better by living in denial, hopeless despair. Instead I work to make it better. That, and ho

"The entire stated purpose of the US opening global markets with the WTO to China was to create their dependency on other nations..."

And, of course, it instead will result in their ownership of those other countries. (They underprice everyone else, get lots of country X's currency in exchange for the goods they sell them, then use that currency to buy up X's bonds, T-bills, etc, and various properties and businesses in X.)

Instead we've funded unworkable Star Wars missile defense systems for billions of dollars, opening the door for every other country that wants to knock out Jesse James to be the #1 gunfighter in the East and West.

Because the government has spent massive amounts of our money on BS like this. IMHO, this money is just payoffs to their friends, and they've known that it would never work from the beginning. Kind of like the Iraq invasion, occupation, and [un]intended reconstruction.

With 2B people to feed, China has much more pressing issues that saving the Earth from comets.

"Feeding the people" is a matter of economic growth. With 9.1% economic growth last year [cia.gov], I'd say they're growing their economy about as fast anybody would dare try.

Now that China is a manufacturing superpower, the next logical steps up the value chain would be research, development, and marketing. Then they can fire all the foreign executives who now keep so much of the value of what they make through out

I'm not certain China can continue to feed its population at the rate the population continues to grow. They definitely can't power their economy or bank it at this rate.

This is why the US doesn't fret so much about China, IMO. There's a lot of talk, but Capitol Hill seems to be taking a wait and see attitude. With the prices of oil skyrocketing with no end in sight, China, a manufacturing powerhouse, is literally a giant with his balls caught

Their economy is growing faster than their population, so it's pretty clear that they can continue to feed its population as it continues to grow, since, overall, they do a better job of keeping people fed than the US does.

China, especially because its economy is so closely tied to its manufacturing prowess, is desperately in need of renewed electrical infrastructure, a benevolent relationship with oil suppliers, etc. In other words... despite their economic growth... they are so dependent on the rest of the world for essentials that they have less power on the world stage than they should have. "Feeding" billions of people is still tough for them to do.

With 2B people to feed, China has much more pressing issues that saving the Earth from comets. And messing with cometary orbits is too risky for even space programs with decades of cautious experience.

You illustrate the point of the program precisely, to educate people with reactionary views like your own. China does not want to be seen as a technically and military inferior country that can be pushed around by the worlds last superpower. The population of China is generally estimated to be 1.3B, not 2B.

They are spending the money on this project for exactly the same reason that JFK launched the moon shot - political prestige translates directly into power. The idea of going to the moon was to spend the USSR into the ground. JFK started the program in 1962, a quarter century later the USSR was kaput.

For example at the moment there is a sizable faction of the Republican party that spends its time talking about the need to start a trade war with China. Some of them even want to go further and instigate a new cold war. In that type of political environment it makes good sense to invest a few billion dollars pointing out that the economy of China is not stagnant and declining and that it has more than enough capacity to support a military sector that is more than sufficient for national defense.

According to the CIA world fact book China's economy is worth 7.2 trillion and is growing at 9.1%, the Us economy is worth 11.8 trillion and is growing at 4.4%. At that rate China overtakes the US in 10 years time. That is not even taking acount of the fact that the US economy is mature and the typical growth rates of mature economies are much less than 4%. Plus the US has a massive balance of payments deficit that is only being financed by China buying US bonds.

So even if the US was to try a cold war strategy at this stage as the neanderthal wing of the GOP would like it is simply too damned late. China has more economic leverage over the US than the US could hope to gain over China.

The US is currently facing the same problem that hit the British Empire. In the 1920s a bunch of politicians got into power who were really into the whole imperialism thing, they swaggered about holding 'empire days' and such. All the time completely oblivious to the fact that the empire was slipping away and their behaviour was one of the main reasons that it was happening.

China and India are becoming world powers. The US is not going to be the worlds only super power in the future. That is a good thing if people would only realize it. The US is not going to be able to pursue a unilateral foreign policy, but why on earth does the Bush administration want to?

One other factoid, population below the poverty line. China 10%, USA 12%.

That is from the CIA world fact book, admitedly the poverty line definition is probably different. But China does not suffer from mass starvation as many in the US seem to think.

India is not nearly as well off. 25% below the poverty line and only 3 Trillion in GDP. That could change rapidly however since the economy has been very much damaged by the autarky policies of previous governments that are being unwound.

According to the CIA world fact book China's economy is worth 7.2 trillion and is growing at 9.1%, the Us economy is worth 11.8 trillion and is growing at 4.4%. At that rate China overtakes the US in 10 years time.

This has been a popular theme for politicians to rally behind for the last 3 decades.

The fact is, nobody will sustain the growth that they are at for the long term. Eventually, China will even out and start facing the same issues that the US has been working out since the '70's.

"JFK started the program in 1962, a quarter century later the USSR was kaput."

And the two have a direct relationship. That is, but-for JFK's starting the program, the USSR would not have fallen. More probably, it was the sudden military build-up during the 1980s that forced the Soviets to compete. It wasn't the space-race that beat the Soviets, it was the military-sprint.

Is it's heading for some rather nasty bumps in the road. Environmental problems are a major one. The polition problems are becomming not only a problem to quality of life, but to industrial uses as well. You can pollute land and water to the point that it's not even useful for factories, and this is happening.

Poverty and education are other major factors. Despite the data cited by another reply, China is very polarized right now. Alone the eastern seaboard in the major cities, many people are seeing a grea

This project is a cover for military operations in space. Maybe they're researching how to divert a planetoid into the Earth, potentially more powerful than any nuclear weapon. Maybe they're just launching weapons into Earth or Solar orbit.

The Chinese government is oppressive and agressive, their not evil and insane. They won't do anythign that so dumb. Their a conservative authoratarian regime that does want prosperity for it's people and occasionally curshes any opposition. The Us does the same but in d

We should have just funded the innovations. It would have been cheaper, more productive, and less threatening to security. And we would have one less reason to distrust the government which lies to us when it says it's not weaponizing space, and when it says that the Star Wars missile defense weapons work.

The last Cold War was so profitable for so long that the people running the US have created another one. The last one sucked. This one will be worse.

Really, when I think: what if all of the money that has been poured into war (cold|on drugs|on terrorism|on every other thing) had been put into improving the lives of people worldwide? While I don't think that we would have a Utopian society, I think that things would be a lot better all around. We would likely have better technological, scientific, and artistic achievement, less poverty, and AIDS would

Personally, I think it's just the comunist party making an attempt at trying to look like they are a competent government rather than the pack of stupid greedy thugs that they are.

What, you mean like every other government in every other country? A close friend of mine has spent almost 10 months of the past two years in China, from what he says the truth about how China handles its citizens lies somewhere between what China or the US would have you believe. Take what you hear from US-gov supplied press re

Due to the unknown mass, irregular shape, partial breakup in the atmosphere, and lack of precision control, it would seem to be difficult to target the reentry to a specific CONTINENT, let alone the desired CITY.

You could end up dropping the thing on yourself as easily as hitting your enemy.